Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1271277693' post='2093476'] This is really disgusting, not to mention unhealthy and unnatural. It could also lead to infection for the woman, because we all know that (1) contraception is a mortal sin and (2) the marital act must end within the wife. Can you imagine that transfer of bacteria?? [/quote] Which he speaks extensively on. I think we need to clarify what he actually said. He basically says there is no good reason to ever engage in such behavior, that both would have to thoroughly clean themselves before the act reached climax which would ruin the act itself, and questions whether the act can ever be truly self-giving. however he does not theologically find the moral grounds on which to state it is absolutely an intrinsically evil act by its nature as foreplay (this is from his book "The Good News on Sex and Marriage" which is a litany of questions and answers that people ask about sex). Anyways, I tend towards the intrinsically evil side as my own theological opinion, which is why am interested in any formal rebuke.
Apotheoun Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1271276186' post='2093451'] He held this view "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse." Until he was soundly and loudly rebuked. He has had other views not in line with Traditional Catholic thought. [/quote] Yes, that is truly disgusting, and there is no way that that kind of sexual practice can be conformed to traditional Catholic moral doctrine.
Socrates Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1271275266' post='2093435'] You and whom ever gave my last post a negative should know West did support sodomy within marriage until he was rebuked. [/quote] [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1271276186' post='2093451'] He held this view "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse." Until he was soundly and loudly rebuked. He has had other views not in line with Traditional Catholic thought. [/quote] You are blatantly misreporting what Mr. West said. He does not support sodomy, in marriage or elsewhere, but speaks out against it. This is clear if you actually read the passages in question ([i]Good News About Sex and Marriage[/i], pp. 93-94). [quote]Some might conclude from a legalistic application of the "so long as it leads to intercourse" principle that anything goes when it comes to foreplay. But spouses who truly love each other aren't looking to get away with as much as possible before "breaking the rules." They're looking to symbolize and renew their marriage commitment as sincerely as possible. For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can't be overlooked. To begin with, the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive systems. Furthermore, since the anus and rectum are not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm. Aesthetically speaking, such behavior involves contact with human waste, which is tolerated when necessary, but not something joyful, beautiful, and pleasing to both spouses. Is it truly loving to subject one's wife to health risks, not to mention the discomfort or even pain associated with such behavior? Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. B[b]ut subjectively speaking, for all the above reasons it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment.[/b][/quote] That hardly sounds like supporting sodomy within marriage. There may be problems with Christopher West's presentation, but blatantly misrepresenting what he says is flat-out wrong, and a sin of slander. Hence the minuses.
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1271278011' post='2093482'] The public outcry from critics is why he changed the previous quote in his book to "Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense, there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking... it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage covenant." Even here he only subjectively warns against sodomy in marriage. Here is one of the critics, I can provide others if I must. [/quote] I realize he has critics with theological opinions, but this is not a formal declaration of error from the Church.
KnightofChrist Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1271277693' post='2093476'] This is really disgusting, not to mention unhealthy and unnatural. It could also lead to infection for the woman, because we all know that (1) contraception is a mortal sin and (2) the marital act must end within the wife. Can you imagine that transfer of bacteria?? [/quote] Indeed, I would also point out that sodomy has always traditionally been an unspeakable vise, but not according to Mr. West. Also I take the negatives I am receiving by pointing out the errors of Mr. West as a badge of honor.
KnightofChrist Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1271278037' post='2093486'] You are blatantly misreporting what Mr. West said.[/quote] I am not. The first quote "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse." is his direct quote. He only later changed it because it is not in line with Church teaching. [quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1271278037' post='2093486']He does not support sodomy, in marriage or elsewhere, but speaks out against it. This is clear if you actually read the passages in question ([i]Good News About Sex and Marriage[/i], pp. 93-94).[/quote] You are speaking of the revised passage, not the original. Even the revised passage only "subjectively" 'condemns' sodomy. [quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1271278037' post='2093486']That hardly sounds like supporting sodomy within marriage. There may be problems with Christopher West's presentation, but blatantly misrepresenting what he says is flat-out wrong, and a sin of slander. Hence the minuses. [/quote] It is hardly condemning it within marriage, only subjectively, which leaves open the possibility that it can in some cases be ok. Again it is not slander. His original quote from his book Good News About Sex and Marriage was "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse." Which is support for sodomy within marriage.
CatherineM Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Other than not being able to understand how anal penetration could be enjoyable, my main difficulty with the discussion is that type of activity could play into someone's SSA.
HisChildForever Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1271278016' post='2093483'] Which he speaks extensively on. I think we need to clarify what he actually said. He basically says there is no good reason to ever engage in such behavior, that both would have to thoroughly clean themselves before the act reached climax which would ruin the act itself, and questions whether the act can ever be truly self-giving. however he does not theologically find the moral grounds on which to state it is absolutely an intrinsically evil act by its nature as foreplay (this is from his book "The Good News on Sex and Marriage" which is a litany of questions and answers that people ask about sex). Anyways, I tend towards the intrinsically evil side as my own theological opinion, which is why am interested in any formal rebuke. [/quote] I agree with you that the act is immoral. Foreplay should not involve penetration, because that is what foreplay is leading up to - the marital act. Anal penetration is a mockery of the marital act, in my opinion, and a misuse of our sexual organs.
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1271278277' post='2093492'] Indeed, I would also point out that sodomy has always traditionally been an unspeakable vise, but not according to Mr. West. Also I take the negatives I am receiving by pointing out the errors of Mr. West as a badge of honor. [/quote] I wouldn't be as so pompous to wear them as a badge of honor, but the points are born out of differing interpretations of sodomy. Those giving you negative points interpret sodomy as the completion of the marital act through such an action, and therefore anything less as West defines it, would not be sodomy, and is a moral gray area. I would define it traditionally as any penetration. When crimes are perpetrated against people and they use objects against a victim it is still classified as sodomy.
HisChildForever Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1271278882' post='2093503'] I wouldn't be as so pompous to wear them as a badge of honor, but the points are born out of differing interpretations of sodomy. Those giving you negative points interpret sodomy as the completion of the marital act through such an action, and therefore anything less as West defines it, would not be sodomy, and is a moral gray area. I would define it traditionally as any penetration. When crimes are perpetrated against people and they use objects against a victim it is still classified as sodomy. [/quote] Are you suggesting that some people on Phatmass think anal penetration as foreplay is okay?
Apotheoun Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1271278882' post='2093503'] I wouldn't be as so pompous to wear them as a badge of honor, but the points are born out of differing interpretations of sodomy. Those giving you negative points interpret sodomy as the completion of the marital act through such an action, and therefore anything less as West defines it, would not be sodomy, and is a moral gray area. I would define it traditionally as any penetration. When crimes are perpetrated against people and they use objects against a victim it is still classified as sodomy. [/quote] I cannot agree with this definition of sodomy. Anal penetration for sexual purposes is contrary to nature even if the man in question does not complete the act in that manner. Edited April 14, 2010 by Apotheoun
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='CatherineM' date='14 April 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1271278626' post='2093501'] Other than not being able to understand how anal penetration could be enjoyable, my main difficulty with the discussion is that type of activity could play into someone's SSA. [/quote] Hedonistic disordered carnal pleasure is possible from any manner of actions with other people or alone, but I think you are onto something.
KnightofChrist Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1271278882' post='2093503'] I wouldn't be as so pompous to wear them as a badge of honor, but the points are born out of differing interpretations of sodomy. Those giving you negative points interpret sodomy as the completion of the marital act through such an action, and therefore anything less as West defines it, would not be sodomy, and is a moral gray area. I would define it traditionally as any penetration. When crimes are perpetrated against people and they use objects against a victim it is still classified as sodomy. [/quote] Sodomy is not a gray area, those that do not define it traditionally are in error and wrong. I also believe there is a bit of 'fanboyism' going on with the negatives.
Apotheoun Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='CatherineM' date='14 April 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1271278626' post='2093501'] Other than not being able to understand how anal penetration could be enjoyable, my main difficulty with the discussion is that type of activity could play into someone's SSA. [/quote] I agree.
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1271279044' post='2093508'] Are you suggesting that some people on Phatmass think anal penetration as foreplay is okay? [/quote] I would say some people disagree about how to define the act of sodomy.
God Conquers Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1271276732' post='2093457'] Your being 'smart', you know the two are the same. [/quote] No, I"m not. I don't know you, and you claim that someone I know teaches Catholic teaching with the support of bishops and other theologians, doesn't have Traditional Catholic thought. Why place a descriptor (with a capital T) if it doesn't mean something different?
HisChildForever Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 I also agree with Catherine concerning SSA. If a man is aroused by anal penetration, well I really question that.
HisChildForever Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1271279136' post='2093515'] I would say some people disagree about how to define the act of sodomy. [/quote] Anal penetration and anal sex (I will use that term to mean when the man finishes improperly) are [i]both[/i] sodomy and to claim that anal penetration is [i]not[/i] sodomy is just an attempt to justify the immoral behavior.
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 April 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1271279047' post='2093510'] I cannot agree with this definition of sodomy. Anal penetration for sexual purposes is contrary to nature even if the man in question does not complete the act in that manner. [/quote] I'm not sure if we disagree or not. I agree that "Anal penetration for sexual purposes is contrary to nature even if the man in question does not complete the act in that manner" and haven't stated anything to the contrary.
Recommended Posts